Holy question

[Burt]

Does Religion clash with Science fiction? Some people have said that Star Trek is anti-religion. Do you think so? What about Shows like Babylon 5, which shows more of religon's in the future?

[Chancellor Valium]

I don't think so. I'm a science-fiction fan, but also a Roman Catholic, and many sci-fi fans I know are religious. I see no conflict, myself.

[PointyHairedJedi]

I wouldn't have said so, necessarily. Being a fan of SF might imply that you are more open to new ideas, but then again it might not. I don't really think that there's a solid correlation there either way.

[Chancellor Valium]

Originally Posted by PointyHairedJedi

I wouldn't have said so, necessarily. Being a fan of SF might imply that you are more open to new ideas, but then again it might not. I don't really think that there's a solid correlation there either way.

In any case, why should someone religious not be open to new ideas?

[Burt]

I think it comes down to how closely you follow Religion. New ideas have always been frowned on by them. Nowadays a Religion, while still might be important in a persons life, isn't usually as dominant as it might have been a number of years ago. There is an interesting link between the popularity of the religion and that generation's attitude towards newer ideas. Women’s rights, different orientations, new technologies were not quite so popular a number of years ago – when religion was dominant.
In any case, a new idea must always be checked against the religions holy laws to make sure it will not clash. And since those laws can never change, they will always be in conflict with society, whose ideas and laws will always be evolving.

[Gatac]

Eh. I'm an atheist myself, but I don't see a problem.

Sci-fi deals with issues. When it talks about religion and philosophy, I think there needs to be a "live and let live" attitude. I mean, if you really believe, then they can say whatever the hell they want and give you a small grin, the one I get when I see a movie or show do something I think is wrong.

(For controversy's sake, I'm going to throw in the old tired 'People who shout loudest are trying to convince themselves the most' cliche and see if anyone bites.)

Gatac

[Ginga]

Oh, it wasn't science fiction that influenced my backing away from Catholicism. But I suppose for some people it could be a factor.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by Burt

What about Shows like Babylon 5, which shows more of religon's in the future?

It shows them all right, but JMS is very good at undercutting religion while making it look like he respects it. The Minbari faith, for example, is taken very seriously by the characters involved... but the show ends up providing a sci-fi explanation for literally everything in it. Brother Theo and his monks are considered nuts by Ivanova and Garibaldi (who actually questions their ability to watch a bunch of monitors); we also find out the government uses them as a nice wholeseome environment to put brainwashed criminals in, presumably programming in the whole believing-in-God thing. And even then JMS couldn't risk having sympathetic characters who were actual, real-life Christians -- Theo and his order were into religious equivalence, the whole "all religions are actually true from different perspectives" thing. Delenn dragged Sheridan to a Baptist revival when she thought it would be good for him, knowing neither of them believed a word that was said there. This is the sort of condescension I mean.

Of course, I'm not forgetting that Gene Roddenberry was even more anti-religion, and openly used Trek to attack it. He believed religion was a phase humanity would grow out of. It wasn't till DS9 and VOY that religion in Trek was taken seriously, and episodes like "Mortal Coil" and "Destiny" had really interesting takes on the subject.

To actually answer the poll question, I've known sci-fi fans from all sorts of religions -- and I don't know anyone whose faith or lack thereof changed because of their sf habits. So empirically speaking, it looks like the two can coexist just fine.

[Chancellor Valium]

Originally Posted by Burt

I think it comes down to how closely you follow Religion. New ideas have always been frowned on by them. Nowadays a Religion, while still might be important in a persons life, isn't usually as dominant as it might have been a number of years ago. There is an interesting link between the popularity of the religion and that generation's attitude towards newer ideas. Women’s rights, different orientations, new technologies were not quite so popular a number of years ago – when religion was dominant.
In any case, a new idea must always be checked against the religions holy laws to make sure it will not clash. And since those laws can never change, they will always be in conflict with society, whose ideas and laws will always be evolving.

Um, nope. Religion is central to my life, but I still love sci-fi, and I'm willing to at least listen to new ideas.

[Burt]

There will always be exceptions with some people. Thankfully some seem to be able to find it's true core, i.e just be nice to each other etc, and fit it in to their lives. Sadly, though, the Religon's at the moment seem to be the blocks on any advancement.

[Sa'ar Chasm]

Sadly, though, the Religons at the moment seem to be the blocks on any advancement.

The ones that get the most airplay, at least. The progressive churches typically aren't the ones grabbing headlines, waving placards and generally making a stink about how this, that and the other thing is going to turn out children into Satan-worshippers.

The Jesuit order somehow manages to combing faith and the pursuit of knowledge without the universe exploding at the contradiction. It took me a while to realise this, though.

[e of pi]

The Jesuits are pretty dang cool, in my opinion. The only downside of attending one of their learning establishments is that every month-or-so you have to attend a mandatory naptime- err, prayer service. Great folks.

[Burt]

Again, nothing is absolute. Some religons are pretty cool. So long as they stick to the nice side of life, promoting peace and thing. Not cursing groups they dislike, and sending everyone to hell.
Sadly the groups and religons that are 'grabbing headlines, waving placards and generally making a stink about how this, that and the other thing is going to turn out children into Satan-worshippers.' seem to get far too many followers.

[Chancellor Valium]

Originally Posted by Burt

There will always be exceptions with some people. Thankfully some seem to be able to find it's true core, i.e just be nice to each other etc, and fit it in to their lives. Sadly, though, the Religon's at the moment seem to be the blocks on any advancement.

Like what? Has it ocurred to you that many of science's clashes with religion in the modern world are over expediency for scientists, where often there are non-ethically challenging solutions, but for the sake of getting things done more easily scientists decide on a quicker route.

[Burt]

Yes. It has. But many religons are based on Thousand year old laws and beliefs. Things that are done nowadays, were unthinkable back then. Only 15 years ago did the Catholic Church admit that Galileo Galilei was right, and they were probley wrong for their opposition. I wouldn't say Scientst's take quicker routes or do things just to annoy religons. Religon, I think is scared of science - always has been. It worries that certain things will be answered. Things, they don't want answered.

[Chancellor Valium]

Originally Posted by Burt

Yes. It has. But many religons are based on Thousand year old laws and beliefs. Things that are done nowadays, were unthinkable back then. Only 15 years ago did the Catholic Church admit that Galileo Galilei was right, and they were probley wrong for their opposition. I wouldn't say Scientst's take quicker routes or do things just to annoy religons. Religon, I think is scared of science - always has been. It worries that certain things will be answered. Things, they don't want answered.

What you don't often hear about Galilei is just how much of a shit-stirrer he was. He deliberately sent-up the Pope who had, up until then, supported him. How would you react to being parodied in a book after giving support to the author?

Did you know that the tenets of this country's law is based on thousand year old beliefs? Does that make it outmoded and wrong? Does that mean that all of a sudden its right to steal?

For the record, Christianity is based on two-thousand year old laws and beliefs. That still doesn't mean that it is wrong to love your neighbour as yourself.

[PointyHairedJedi]

The problem being, a lot of "Christians" don't.

[Gatac]

My take on it is basically "Believe what you want, but let us believe what we want". I don't mean this in a bad way, but it seems religion goes wrong when the believers try to muscle in on "heathen" territory.

Which is why I think religious education needs to be more widespread, but cover the world's major religions in greater variety. The ethical rules a society depends on for existence aren't unique to any one creed; agree on them, the rest is your business.

Yes, this has several funky spots (What happens to your children? What if your beliefs are harmful to yourself?), but I think that can be worked out. I dread the alternative where everything I do that doesn't follow the one true religion is automatically suspect; there is no morality without choice.

I know, I'm exagerating, but let me dig out one of the great debates of our time: stem-cell research. It is my opinion that if everyone directly involved in the process - donors, scientists, medical professionals and patients - are okay with it, the greater population is free to not accept these methods, but not in trying to keep it out of everyone's hands. I do know that many religious orientations feature a strong "save the unbelievers from themselves" theme, but this is where the fun stops for me; it's not religious tolerance to let somebody harass and decry other beliefs.

To wrap this up, here's a quote from Boondock Saints, where a handful of heavily-armed sociopaths make my point.

Murphy: Do not kill. Do not rape. Do not steal. These are principles which every man of every faith can embrace.
Connor: These are not polite suggestions, these are codes of behavior, and those of you that ignore them will pay the dearest cost.
Murphy: There are varying degrees of evil. We urge you lesser forms of filth, not to push the bounds and cross over, into true corruption, into our domain.
Connor: For if you do, one day you will look behind you and you will see we three, and on that day you will reap it.
Murphy: And we will send you to whatever god you wish.

Gatac

[Burt]

Originally Posted by Chancellor Valium

What you don't often hear about Galilei is just how much of a shit-stirrer he was. He deliberately sent-up the Pope who had, up until then, supported him. How would you react to being parodied in a book after giving support to the author?

That gives them the right to class him as a heretic? Keep him under house arrest for the rest of this life? Refuse to allow anyone to believe his (Mostly Correct) Theories? Shouldn't a pope be able to 'Forgive and Forget'? In Any case this happened not just with Galilei, but with many others. They were a threat to Christianity.

Originally Posted by Chancellor Valium

Did you know that the tenets of this country's law is based on thousand year old beliefs? Does that make it outmoded and wrong? Does that mean that all of a sudden its right to steal?

Did you know that it was the Law for a man to keep a slave? Or that Women couldn't vote. But do we still have those laws? No. Of course not. Because they do not apply to TODAY'S world. Women are equal to men. Why then is it hard for females to join the church, and attain higher levels?
Yes change in the law can be hard, but it can come round, because the law of a country is not the basis of that countries beliefs - it's an extension of the countries needs. Do we need to protect against theft? Yes, that’s why we have laws against them. Do we need to protect against people of different sexual orientations marrying? No. That’s why the idea of changing laws to 'Outlaw' things that a people 'don't like' is so dangerous.
But laws do change - Religious 'Laws' do not. They can't because, how can you change something that was supposedly influenced by a God? You can't. What was written then has to stay right up till now.
But the problem is....then doesn't always work, with now.

Originally Posted by Chancellor Valium

For the record, Christianity is based on two-thousand year old laws and beliefs.

For the record’s record, as Christianity is based partly on the Old Testament’s ‘Laws and Beliefs’ and it was written between the 5th and 2nd Century BC, Christianity is somewhat more than two-thousand.

Originally Posted by Chancellor Valium

That still doesn't mean that it is wrong to love your neighbour as yourself.

Watch the Irish Catholics throw things at Protestant children as they go to school, and vice versa, and then make that claim….

[Chancellor Valium]

Originally Posted by Burt

That gives them the right to class him as a heretic? Keep him under house arrest for the rest of this life? Refuse to allow anyone to believe his (Mostly Correct) Theories? Shouldn't a pope be able to 'Forgive and Forget'? In Any case this happened not just with Galilei, but with many others. They were a threat to Christianity.

Maybe not, but frankly, he was dealing with man in the Middle Ages. He should have known better than to start insulting powerful men left, right and centre. Furthermore, the Inquisition, not the Church itself, classed him as a heretic, and as you should remember, the Inquisition was set up not by the Pope, but by Ferdinand + Isabella.

Originally Posted by Burt

Did you know that it was the Law for a man to keep a slave? Or that Women couldn't vote. But do we still have those laws? No. Of course not. Because they do not apply to TODAY'S world. Women are equal to men. Why then is it hard for females to join the church, and attain higher levels?
Yes change in the law can be hard, but it can come round, because the law of a country is not the basis of that countries beliefs - it's an extension of the countries needs. Do we need to protect against theft? Yes, that’s why we have laws against them. Do we need to protect against people of different sexual orientations marrying? No. That’s why the idea of changing laws to 'Outlaw' things that a people 'don't like' is so dangerous.
But laws do change - Religious 'Laws' do not. They can't because, how can you change something that was supposedly influenced by a God? You can't. What was written then has to stay right up till now.
But the problem is....then doesn't always work, with now.

The problem is, that people seem to have this idea that the mood of the century outweighs a prevailing law that has lasted two millennia. There will be an anti-same-sex swing back, in time. But religious law is based on God. God is eternal, and unchanging. He won't change with the latest 'hip' thing to think.

Originally Posted by Burt

For the record’s record, as Christianity is based partly on the Old Testament’s ‘Laws and Beliefs’ and it was written between the 5th and 2nd Century BC, Christianity is somewhat more than two-thousand.

In part. The majority is actually based on the teaching of Jesus the Nazarene for most mainstream denominations.

Originally Posted by Burt

Watch the Irish Catholics throw things at Protestant children as they go to school, and vice versa, and then make that claim….

And do you have any idea why they are throwing things? These are people who have had their homes invaded and were persecuted for centuries. The protestants aren't ruddy Irish! They don't belong in Ireland, the were just thrust there to make James the Sixth and First feel better. They invaded, stole jobs, homes, churches and acted all superior. They're why Ulster hasn't been repatriated to Ireland. They are, in short, a menace that the people of Ulster have had to put up with for about 500 years, and frankly after that amount of time you and I wouldn't care about whether the targets of our agression were children or adults either.

I'm sorry, but this is a particularly sensitive topic for me as I'm a quarter Irish.